Otherwise, totally plausible, just like all theories on how we exist. It's kind of silly to write it off because it's non-beneficial. You may's well call the theory of universal heat death junk because it's non-beneficial to our will to survive, too.
That theory could be useful to us someday, if not already (first time I've ever heard of it frankly.) The theory that we could exist within someone else's computer simulations we will never have control over and that the simulation could end any moment now once the owner of the simulation became bored is unprovable and as pointless as postulating the existence of a deity (these really aren't much different, if you can compare God to whoever can modify the simulation.) There is nothing you can do with this theory except to cause someone to say "Hmmm, that's interesting," after which they continue doing things which matter, such as going for jogs, or enjoying time with friends.
There are two possibilities here: the simulation is real, in which case the only one benefiting is the owner of the simulation as they would otherwise have no reason to create a simulation at all, or the simulation is not real, in which case it doesn't matter. This is why it's pointless for those existing within the simulation to ponder whether or not they're in a simulation: there is nothing to gain from that position, except a loss in will for falsely believing one's own life to be trivial. There are no gold medals in life for "getting it right"; there's nothing to gain from being first to discovering life in this carnation is a simulation, unless one is very new at philosophy and have yet to discover any higher meanings in life, thereby falsely believing one's short-sighted and baseless theories to have any validity or worthiness of being published anywhere, which is why I pointed out it's junk. We are faced with the conundrum of requiring proof of that which creates the simulation and, just as all theories of there being a higher order, we're left with a catch 22 where the only way to discover this is to ask the owner (God) to prove it, and they have a huge incentive not to if they wish to acquire accurate results, or to be outside of the simulation looking in, in which case people would still ask themselves, outside of the simulation, whether they were in a simulation, and if the people who owned
that simulation were also in a simulation.
I don't write it off because it's non-beneficial--that is a quality. I write it off because there is no condition to be false about this belief, and an impossible condition to be correct, thus leaving the theory in perpetual limbo. Fortunately, science teaches us that we do not have to bother with the unprovable, and that it is the burden of he who puts forward to prove, not to be unproven. People to this day still attempt to rationally and empirically prove the existence of God, and I say, good on them, but I worry they'll lay upon their death beds wondering if there was a better usage of their time.
